Excel/BW Legal - Defendant is not RK

Ok... Rights of Audience:

In BW Legal's email to me last week, Leigh Schelvis confirmed "that the Claimant will not be in attendance at the hearing, but will be represented by an instructed advocate."

In his WS, Leigh (as a solicitor in the employ of BW Legal for the claimant) says he has "conduct of this action".

On Tuesday next week, how/when do I learn who is representing the Claimant?

I'm under the impression (please correct me if I'm wrong!), that they will either be an 'Authorised Person', a solicitor/barrister or a CILEx Practitioner, or an 'Exempt Person'.

How would I check that they're 'Authorised'?

Do I just check:

Solicitors: http://solicitors.lawsociety.org.uk
Barristers: https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/regulatory-requirements/the-barristers'-register/
CILEx: http://www.cilex.org.uk/about_cilex/about-cilex-lawyers/cilex-practitioners-directory

If they're not, and are claiming to be 'Exempt', would I just have to bring up their RoA? And draw the judges attention to: Sch. 3 of the Legal Services Act 2007/McShane v Lincoln/Ellis v Larson?

Thanks again, getting nervous now...

Admittedly pedantic, but here goes:

WS 1. "I have conduct of this action" RoA issue will be addressed on Tuesday!
WS 5. "for which the Defendant was responsible" - shouldn't that say "for which I/we believe..."?
WS 6. "The Claimant follows these [IPC CoP] recommendations" is denied
WS 7. That's a witness statement that there's a contract, not a contract. Will the witness be present in Court? And is that still the case?
WS 8. I cannot make anything of their PCN (LS1 pages 2 - 3), apart from the fact they've clearly altered the 'Time Issued'. What's a Liability Notice? If they're suggesting it's the NtK (LS1 page 4), that wasn't issued against me?
WS 9. "Highly prominent"? Denied, see pages 17 - 26 of my Exhibits Bundle.
WS 10. Stated, not state - the signage is no longer there, as Excel lost the contract to operate to ParkingEye.
WS 11. Detailed, not detail. Stated, not state.
WS 12. "Sufficient and adequate"? "Was and is" - "was" needs debating, "is" is not true.
WS 13. Is that enough? Should the signs have been brought to my attention?
WS 14. I can't make any of that out!
WS 15. I "Failed to contest the PCN", yet in the letter dated 02/03/16, my "appeal" was rejected. Incurred costs? "despite and [sic] independent adjudicated [sic] finding in the Claimant's favour" - this hasn't been independently adjudicated (see "failed to make a further course of appeal to the Independent Appeals Services"?
WS 16. Weren't able to respond to my communication, as they didn't have a serviceable address, but then they issued a communication in any event?
WS 17. Stated, not states. Where does it 'clearly' state this?
WS 18. "sufficient lighting"? "illuminate" - they're not reflective! Denied - see pages 21 - 22 of my Exhibits Bundle. Featured, not feature
WS 21. "(how often)" - was Leigh meant to put something in there? Complied, not comply - but that's denied (see pages 2 - 4 of my Exhibits Bundle).
WS 22. Were clearly displayed, not are. Denied, see pages 17 - 26 of my Exhibits Bundle.
WS 23. I can't make any of that out!
WS 24. Denied - the signs aren't "so obvious that they must have been read". Nor did I choose not to read them - I didn't see them.
WS 30. "Motorists could hardly avoid reading the notices" - in the Beavis case? Or in this case? The CoP doesn't give "guidance that a [sic] £100 is a reasonable sum to charge" is says that " It is suggested the maximum parking charge should be: £100."
WS 31. "Instruct solicitors (incurring expense)" Can this be proved? "which were agreed by the Defendant" no they weren't - they weren't seen!
WS 32. Chaplair Limited v Kumari:
Far from supporting this attempt at double recovery by adding imaginary 'solicitors costs', Chaplair can be fully distinguished from this matter, since that was a decision about contractual fees set in lease terms, not fabricated 'costs' bolted on afterwards to an already significantly inflated 'parking charge' which bears no relation to any tariff displayed at the location.
Chaplair concerned a housing agreement in which the issue of legal costs was specifically written into the contract. Those costs were allowed for the simple reason they had been listed separately and described as contractual recovery costs on the original particulars of claim. The sum the Claimant is demanding seems to have been plucked from thin air and I assert the £54 figure did not appear on the signs. CPR 27.14 certainly disallows your thinly-veiled attempt at double recovery.
WS 41. PD 7E 5.2 limits PoC to 1080 (including spaces) - Excels PoC contained 793
WS 42. But it's been signed by "BW Legal Services Limited", contrary to PD 22 para 3.10!
WS 43. It's denied, but the PoC failed to disclose the head or heads of action in which the proceedings are based. Only now (para 39) does the Defendant state that "The Defendant [sic] has a cause of action against the Defendant for breach of contract". I assume Leigh means that the Claimant has a cause of action against the Defendant for breach of contract.
WS 44. No they didn't!!
WS 51. ParkingEye Limited (Respondent) v Beavis (Appellant) [2015] UKSC 67 Paras 97 and 107
WS 54. I said they were formerly BPA members
WS 56. "easily read able and illuminated when head lights shine on them." - no they're not! I have SINCE visited (to take photos), have spoken with other defendants and have viewed countless Google street views of different dates.
WS 58. "(pages)" Was Leigh supposed to put a page reference here? They've supplied no evidence of an entrance sign!
WS 60. Eh? I was aware of the existence of the PDT machine and signs AFTER getting the PCN.
WS 61. I'm not bringing an action against the claimant for breaching planning law - I'm pointing out that they didn't have permission/consent.
WS 62. Leigh thinks Excel v Cutts is wanting in relevance
WS 63. But this case can be distinguished from the Beavis case
WS 64. Noted but not denied?

I've let a few spelling mistakes slide (poor Leigh is a busy man!), but have I missed anything important?